Pkoceedings of Seventeej^th ]^oemal Institute 91 



especially poor, or there miglit have been other conditions that pre- 

 vented that particular year from being a normal one. Assuming 

 that the year was as good as one could normally expect, there 

 are yet- reasons why a farmer might find it to his advantage to 

 continue growing an apparently unprofitable crop. Suppose, for 

 example, that the oat crop on a particular farm shows a loss of 

 $2 per acre and that labor costs 20 cents per hour. Oats normally 

 require about 20 hours of man labor per acre so that a loss of 

 $2 per acre means a loss of about 10 cents per hour. This means 

 that while working on oats the producer receives ^ wages or 10 

 cents per hour. If the work on oats comes at a time when one 

 would otherwise be idle, or if there is no more profitable work 

 that could be substituted, then gTOwing oats is desirable. While 

 growing oats the farmer is getting 10 cents per hour for his time 

 and full pay for the work done by his horses, full rent for his land 

 and buildings, and pay for all other expenses. Aside from the 

 standpoint of labor distribution, the crop may utilize the land 

 to better advantage, it may improve the rotation, furnish straw 

 for bedding at a lower cost than it could be purchased, or answer 

 other purposes. 



Results secured by cost accounting methods on the cost of crop 

 production are valuable. They furnish reliable figures, and these 

 figures are relative, so it is possible to compare different crops on 

 the same farm ; but these figures are not final. Cost of produc- 

 tion, while important, is only one of several factors that should 

 be considered in deciding whether or not one should grow any 

 particular crop. 



